The Covid Emergency is Over

[chaos]

It would be easy to spot though, you dont think there are people who's job it is to review this stuff?

Who pays those people?

[Grape Ape]

It would be easy to spot though, you dont think there are people who's job it is to review this stuff?

This statement could be extrapolated to infer fraud is impossible and never happens.

So I'm not sure this is a great counter.

[Grape Ape]

For consistency and to reduce or explain heterogeneity, things like sub-group analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis,random effects model etc are used for the actual variable its things such as Tau2 and I2 amongst other. Other methods such as linear regression analysis help tease apart multiple variables intrastudy. There are many others and many I don't understand as I am in medicine not a PHD or statistician so we are at the limit of my understanding at this point.

As for the window, what exactly do you mean when you say that?

As for your last point, any good discussion section of a study would highlight that. They are supposed to discuss the limits of the study, possible errors they made, things that should be studied, possible confounders etc.  So they would say, the dosage may have been to low or the trial period to short. Another study would build on that until positive results (if any are found). Once found they then have to replicate and continue the process.

Re: "window".

Those who are proponents of Ivermectin claim there is a limited window to administer the drug for it to be effective.  Meaning, it's administered early enough in the lifecycle so that its anti-viral replicating abilities who take effect.

Conversely, they claim studies claiming ivermectin's ineffectiveness was because it was given after said window.

Hence, my question wondering how many of those studies adhered to those parameters.  Those that didn't, could, in theory, be dismissed if you are taking the pro-ivermectin side.

[Necrosis]

This statement could be extrapolated to infer fraud is impossible and never happens.

So I'm not sure this is a great counter.

In it's strong form sure, but colloquiallly it would just mean there are checks in balances in place to make sure it doesn't happen. Of course it does happen but its a very low percentage and is also tracked.

In it's strong form one could say it means that it never occurs but no one would ever suggest that as that's not how reality operates.

[Necrosis]

Re: "window".

Those who are proponents of Ivermectin claim there is a limited window to administer the drug for it to be effective.  Meaning, it's administered early enough in the lifecycle so that its anti-viral replicating abilities who take effect.

Conversely, they claim studies claiming ivermectin's ineffectiveness was because it was given after said window.

Hence, my question wondering how many of those studies adhered to those parameters.  Those that didn't, could, in theory, be dismissed if you are taking the pro-ivermectin side.

I think without looking through all the studies to ascertain where in the life cycle the drugs were started the burden of proof would rest in the pro-ivermectin camp to prove that there is a window at all. In other anti-viral trials we have established when they need to be taken and for them not to work when infection is active is extremely rare- in retro viruses etc.

They have conducted studies with folks who test positive without symptoms, which would be about as early as one could reasonable do it, folks that have been likely "exposed". The drug didnt reduce infection rates or severity. The drug does have some anti-inflammatory effects as well so  there may be benefit to certain populaitons.

Overall, if it worked, we would have seen a signal in some of the studies, there wasn't once the quality of the studies improved.

So if what the studies are showing is incorrect, is the argument then that big pharma is suppressing ivermectin and if so, why? because they can't patent it?

[Grape Ape]

I think without looking through all the studies to ascertain where in the life cycle the drugs were started the burden of proof would rest in the pro-ivermectin camp to prove that there is a window at all. In other anti-viral trials we have established when they need to be taken and for them not to work when infection is active is extremely rare- in retro viruses etc.

They have conducted studies with folks who test positive without symptoms, which would be about as early as one could reasonable do it, folks that have been likely "exposed". The drug didnt reduce infection rates or severity. The drug does have some anti-inflammatory effects as well so  there may be benefit to certain populaitons.

Overall, if it worked, we would have seen a signal in some of the studies, there wasn't once the quality of the studies improved.

So if what the studies are showing is incorrect, is the argument then that big pharma is suppressing ivermectin and if so, why? because they can't patent it?

Big Pharma legit could be, just like they are supposedly currently doing with Peptides, but I wasn't really coming at it from that angle.

My issue with Ivermectin was more the demonization of it, along with other drugs/methods that doctors were employing in an attempt to save folks lives.

Especially given the extremely low risk of detrimental effects from it.

I don't want those trying to convey a revisionist history to be successful at it.

[illuminati]

Yes China virus 19  is most certainly alive & kicking
in the heads of Prime & Pronoun boy Necrosis of the brain.
I bet they saw those people wandering around like zombies & dropping
dead just like in the early news feeds from china & the boarding of folk
up in there homes

Strange that I & a lot of other folk I know were out & about in
towns & cities yet we never saw any of the zombies dying.

Hmmmmm I wonder if that could of be staged & just set up to
frighten folk - As it very soon disappeared from news Feeds.

Nah MSM / Big Pharma / Government would never do such a
thing to con people.      Believe that & you believe in Father
Christmas

[chaos]

So if what the studies are showing is incorrect, is the argument then that big pharma is suppressing ivermectin and if so, why? because they can't patent it?

BINGO. Also they can't charge a premium or get the government to finance their R&D if an existing drug can help.

[Necrosis]

Big Pharma legit could be, just like they are supposedly currently doing with Peptides, but I wasn't really coming at it from that angle.

My issue with Ivermectin was more the demonization of it, along with other drugs/methods that doctors were employing in an attempt to save folks lives.

Especially given the extremely low risk of detrimental effects from it.

I don't want those trying to convey a revisionist history to be successful at it.

They arent with regards to peptides, some of the peptides have very little research. The other blow to that argument is that the peptides they do sell like semaglutide, tirz  are some of the best selling drugs in the world. There is no reason to suppress them. Tesamorelin is approved, thats a peptide and many other instances. CJC1295 was halted during research because someone died, people say they are holding that drug back.

If its being demonized because people are using it over effective treatments, then yes, it clearly should be. What other reason would they demonize it?

It's safe for sure.

[Necrosis]

BINGO. Also they can't charge a premium or get the government to finance their R&D if an existing drug can help.

I was being sarcastic.

thats the only obvious motivation to do something like this.

What would disprove this position in your mind? I know what would in mine.

[Grape Ape]

They arent with regards to peptides, some of the peptides have very little research. The other blow to that argument is that the peptides they do sell like semaglutide, tirz  are some of the best selling drugs in the world. There is no reason to suppress them. Tesamorelin is approved, thats a peptide and many other instances. CJC1295 was halted during research because someone died, people say they are holding that drug back.

I wasn't talking about the established ones - I was talking about the ones we've discussed - GLOW, KLOW, etc...

If its being demonized because people are using it over effective treatments, then yes, it clearly should be. What other reason would they demonize it?

It's safe for sure.

What were considered "effective treatments" when someone contracted covid?

[chaos]

What would disprove this position in your mind? I know what would in mine.

I don't know. I have very little trust in the pharmaceutical industry. 

[Necrosis]

I wasn't talking about the established ones - I was talking about the ones we've discussed - GLOW, KLOW, etc...


What were considered "effective treatments" when someone contracted covid?

I know, my point was that those peptides have less research and applications. They are being studied but its not entirely clear what condition they could be approved for. Tesamorelin for example works for lipodystrophy in AIDS so it makes sense to push it, it has a clear indication. I think if they could make money they would do it. Something like BPC-157 for example, it might heal injuries faster or maybe guy stuff but it seems like a pretty general peptide and they need to prove it works for a condition which makes it hard. KPV was studied in IBD but the data was meh as another example.

WRT the effective treatment, back then proven anti-virals made more sense, but there wasn't one. Now there is paxlovid and a few others and the vaccines for prevention of severe illness.

I just don't think it works, I can't see why it would against this type of virus and not other viruses for example. When drugs are tested or created they are coming from immunological profiling (what type of virus, how it works etc) which is why hiv meds dont work for influenza (its a retro-virus). So we know about corona viruses, have the categorized etc. this was a new strain not seen before but still in the family so you had a starting point on what could/would work.

[Necrosis]

I don't know. I have very little trust in the pharmaceutical industry.

What if, private companies did research and it matched exactly what the pharma companies found? what if other countries did the studies as well and replicated the data, surely that must mean it's not falsified unless everyone is in on it.

I would say that if a private company proved that ivermectin cured corona, that's a nobel, prestige and unlimited funding for life for various projects.

[chaos]

What if, private companies did research and it matched exactly what the pharma companies found? what if other countries did the studies as well and replicated the data, surely that must mean it's not falsified unless everyone is in on it.

I would say that if a private company proved that ivermectin cured corona, that's a nobel, prestige and unlimited funding for life for various projects.

I think you SEVERELY underestimate the influence and power of the American pharma industry to suppress information that would impact their income and control.

[Grape Ape]

WRT the effective treatment, back then proven anti-virals made more sense, but there wasn't one. Now there is paxlovid and a few others and the vaccines for prevention of severe illness.

For a long time, there appeared to be no protocols.  If you got covid, you treated it like the flu, and hoped it didn't progress to where you were hospitalized.

The only "protocol" I saw at the time was the Zelenko protocol which called for the following (AI summary since I forgot) but it never got to the mainstream:

Treat early — ideally within the first 5 days of symptoms, based on clinical suspicion (even before confirmatory PCR testing results).

Risk-stratified approach:

High-risk patients (e.g., older than 45, or younger with comorbidities like diabetes, obesity, heart disease, etc., or clinically unstable) received the full triple therapy (HCQ + azithromycin + zinc).

Low-risk patients (younger, healthy, no major comorbidities) often received supportive care plus over-the-counter supplements like zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D3, and sometimes quercetin (as a zinc ionophore alternative if HCQ was unavailable).

Later versions or updates (from protocols shared in documents around 2020–2021) sometimes included alternatives like doxycycline (instead of azithromycin), ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid), higher-dose vitamin D, colchicine, blood thinners, or steroids like dexamethasone for more severe cases.

Monoclonial antibodies were tough to get, then were gone (I know becuase I tried).

I know you believe differently, but it just appears that there is a ton of real time doctor's testimony that hitting this early with a bunch of things limited hospitializations....but in summary, it does not appear to be a legitimate reason to prohibit the use of ivermectin, let alone vilify doctors, fire them etc......

[Necrosis]

I think you SEVERELY underestimate the influence and power of the American pharma industry to suppress information that would impact their income and control.

But they loose money like crazy on drugs that just don't work after research. I realize there is politics but I think you are overestimating it.

[Necrosis]

For a long time, there appeared to be no protocols.  If you got covid, you treated it like the flu, and hoped it didn't progress to where you were hospitalized.

The only "protocol" I saw at the time was the Zelenko protocol which called for the following (AI summary since I forgot) but it never got to the mainstream:

Monoclonial antibodies were tough to get, then were gone (I know becuase I tried).

I know you believe differently, but it just appears that there is a ton of real time doctor's testimony that hitting this early with a bunch of things limited hospitializations....but in summary, it does not appear to be a legitimate reason to prohibit the use of ivermectin, let alone vilify doctors, fire them etc......

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, I was more so answering questions in the role of the medical community as an institution per se. I am a contrarian by nature so I will generally take the opposing position of others simply to argue/learn/debate/discuss.

There is definitely a place for intuition in medicine but there are reasonable arguments for not using it and it was studied. I just don't like the idea or subscribe to the idea that there is a cabal blocking this effective medication. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

[Grape Ape]

There is definitely a place for intuition in medicine but there are reasonable arguments for not using it and it was studied. I just don't like the idea or subscribe to the idea that there is a cabal blocking this effective medication. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

Normally I'd agree, but we have enough examples in recent history to show conspiracy theories are just as likely to be spoiler alerts instead of tinfoil hat stuff.

[Necrosis]

Normally I'd agree, but we have enough examples in recent history to show conspiracy theories are just as likely to be spoiler alerts instead of tinfoil hat stuff.

they are far less likely to be true then more parsimonious answers. Occams razor is useful.

[chaos]

But they loose money like crazy on drugs that just don't work after research. I realize there is politics but I think you are overestimating it.

"Loose" a few dollars and make billions...seems like a good deal to me. If you knew about business, that's exactly what the pharma industry is.

[Grape Ape]

they are far less likely to be true then more parsimonious answers. Occams razor is useful.

Occams razor can be applied to both sides of this issue.